Can Americans Learn, or Is It too Much of a Challenge for Them?

Reading the comments on the Unz Review of my latest article there, "The True Story of World War II," I wonder about the point of my efforts in truth's behalf. https://www.unz.com/proberts/the-true-story-of-world-war-ii/ 

I have long wondered about the utility of readers' comments, especially comments that the writers are too ashamed to associate with their real names.  An anonymous comment has no value.  Some comments seem to have no explanation, such as number 31 by Anonymous534. Perhaps Anonymous534 will explain why telling me to F-off and go be senile somewhere else contributes to a discussion.  Sometimes a reader's comments make no sense whatsoever, and I wonder if the reader never learned to read. In comment #3 anonymous [155] responds to my article which raises numerous questions about the entire Zionist narrative of WW II by accusing me of "promoting the ZioJewish cause thru dis-info, mal-info, mis-info, misdirection, omission, and all the other deceit he spins like a top." So I stand accused of promoting the "ZioJewish cause" by questioning aspects of it.

My articles are posted on the Unz Review without comments unless they are leads as the current one is.  Readers have criticized me for closing my articles from comments.  I would like to address their complaint.

First, I will make some general comments to illustrate the kind of mistakes commentators frequently make, and I will give some examples from the current comments to my article on the September 3, 2026, Unz Review.

Next, I will answer some of the readers' questions that might or might not have been asked in sincerity.

Then I will explain the dangers I see in comment sections, which editors of the sites themselves might not see.

A common error is for readers to confuse or conflate reporting by a writer of someone's conclusions or explanations with the writer's own views. The Zionists at Wikipedia did this to me by turning my review of one of David Irving's books into my views and turning my report that Irving said he could document up to 300,000 Jews executed but had not found in documents evidence of an organized holocaust.  Wikipedia attributed my report of Irving's findings as my view and branded me a Holocaust denier.  As I have never studied the Holocaust, I do not qualify as a Holocaust denier.

Another common mistake is to find cause in result. Another is to assert the commentator's beliefs as historical fact.  Comment number 12 by 1951 presents us with all of these mistakes.  Indeed, his assertions are contradictory.  If there was no danger that Poland would meet Hitler's requests about Germans in or hindered by Poland, why did Chamberlain give a British guarantee to Poland?  Chamberlain didn't give a guarantee in Munich, and no war resulted.  Nowhere in Hitler's negotiations with the Polish military government is there any reference to half of Poland, which the commentator claims Hitler demanded.  The agreement between Germany and the Soviet Union came later after Hitler was rebuffed by Poland on the basis of Chamberlain's guarantee.  Thus it was the British guarantee and subsequent British and French declaration of war on Germany that caused the war.  It is a difficult argument that Hitler started a war with Britain and France that Britain and France started by declaring war on Germany. As the British guarantee was unenforceable, Britain did not need to declare war on Germany.  Hitler attacked the British and French only after Britain and France started the war with their declaration of war. It was one of those situations where Chamberlain thought his honor was at stake and that his honor was more important than the lives of millions of peoples and the destruction of Europe. So much for British honor.